A Dangerous Precedent Abuilding in California

Free Congress Foundation | Paul M. Weyrich | October 25, 2007

There is terrible news from California. On October 12, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law three bills which, the opposition argues, introduce the radical homosexual agenda into educational institutions. Unquestionably the traditional purpose of public education is to teach reading, writing, mathematics and other fundamentals necessary for well-rounded intellectual development. Instead, these institutions apparently will become miniature laboratories for redefining nature, implementing “gender theory” and experimenting with the effects of sexual lifestyles.

The first bill, SB 777, evidently bans anything in public schools that could be interpreted as discriminating against or critical of homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other alternative lifestyle choices. It prohibits any classroom instruction or school-sponsored activity that “promotes a discriminatory bias” against “sexual orientation” and “gender,” which includes cross-dressing, sex changes and any other behavior “not stereotypically associated with one’s assigned sex at birth.” Forget any book, reference or teaching aid which shows marriage as only between a man and a woman (the definition California voters approved several years ago); materials which say people are born male or female (not in-between or subject to change); sources which fail to include a variety of transsexual, bisexual and homosexual historical figures; and sex education materials which fail to offer the option of sex changes. In addition, homecoming kings can now be either male or female, as can homecoming queens, and students, whether male or female, must be allowed to use the restroom and locker room corresponding to the sex with which they choose to identify (potentially especially pernicious to young girls). Such an attempt to redefine language to suit one’s political and sexual interests would make George Orwell proud.

AB 394 requires the State Department of Education to monitor adherence to anti-discrimination and anti-harassment requirements involving “actual or perceived gender identification and sexual orientation” in local schools. Schools must adopt policies which prohibit discrimination and harassment based upon sexual identity or orientation and a process to receive and investigate complaints in these cases. Schools also will have to provide classroom handouts (including some specifically for parents) and display information in the halls, lounges and on websites that specifically address “bias-related discrimination and harassment” against homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality or other “alternative lifestyle choices.”

The final bill, AB 14, prohibits state funding for any program that does not support a range of alternative sexual practices, including state-funded social services run by churches. This means that day-cares, preschools, after-school programs, food and housing programs, senior services, anti-gang efforts, job programs and others must all teach and accept homosexuality, bisexuality, transsexuality and all the other sexualities. It also forces every hospital in California, even private and religious hospitals, to adopt policies of support for the aforementioned sexualities and opens up non-profit organizations to lawsuits if they exclude members who engage in any such sexual conduct.

. . . more

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

23 thoughts on “A Dangerous Precedent Abuilding in California”

  1. This is one of those problems that refelects the absence of a sensible middle-ground.

    When pro-Gay groups and anti-Gay groups look at this legislation they see two different bills. Pro-Gay groups look at the legislation they see a bill that protects young people of gay orientation from harrassment and an environment of hatred and hostility. Anti-Gay groups look at this legislation they see a bill that would instill moral values in their children that many parents find objectionable. The legislation should have been more narrowly written to protect gay students and other users of state services from a hostile climate while omitting any requirement that alternative lifestyles need to be “taught” or otherwise proomoted in schools or other state-funded venues.

    Father Hopko writes:

    The homosexual Christian is called to a particularly rigorous battle. His or her struggle is an especially ferocious one. It is not made any easier by the mindless, truly demonic hatred of those who despise and ridicule those who carry this painful and burdensome cross; nor by the mindless, equally demonic affirmation of homosexual activity by its misguided advocates and enablers.

    https://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles2/HopkoHomosexuality.php

    The goal of the law therefore should be to protect people from both types of demonic behavior Father Hopko describes.

  2. Dean, just look at your language: Pro-gay, anti-gay. First of all for a Christian to acceed to the twisting of our language by using the word “gay” to referred to homosexuals and their behavior is wrong. Second, to label any one who does not agree with the state promotion of homosexuality, sexual license and other abberant sexual conduct as anti anything is incorrect. It is not really about homosexuality or tolerance or any of that crap anyway. Fr. Hopko’s statement has no relevance to what is going on here. It is strictly about power. You realize I am sure that tolerance is an engineering term that describes how much deviation from the perfect is to be allowed. In an engine, too much tolerance and things fly apart, too little and they freeze up. From a cultural perspective we are clearly far into the realm of too much tolerance.

    The folks who use the power of the state to tyrannically promote destructive behavior are anti-human. It is an assault on free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, equal protection under the law, the list goes on and on. How in the world did the tag “liberal” get applied to such egregious tyranny.

    But such action is not surprising. It is the logical result of the political and cultural environment created by the philosophy of the 60’s generation, i.e, to quash all virtue and to elevate the individual passions to the level of the godhead. It is nihlism–the will to power and the triumph of the superman. Straight out of Nietzche. For a Christian to accomodate with it in any manner is to risk apostasy.

  3. The only way we will ever win these battles is to decentralize funding for California schools. The CTA (California Teacher’s Association should be renamed the California Teacher’s retirement fund) goes along with whatever liberal politicians desire.

    My sons had to each watch, “An Inconvenient Truth,” multiple times, in various classes last spring and this fall. One science teacher admitted to the class the movie was full of propaganda with very few scientific facts.

    Our schools no longer support academics or critical thinking but are used by politicians to indoctrinate children to the pet projects of various special interest groups. They are only able to do this because of the centralized funding of schools at the state level.

    We need to return to the model of local funding of our schools in order to remove the politics and propaganda from the classroom.

  4. How we balance the rights of one group to be treated with dignity, with the rights of another group to freely express their religious beliefs and not be exposed to public messages that attack those beliefs, is an increasingly prominent and difficult question.

    Two recent events:

    In Sacramento, last April.

    A handful of students were suspended from Rio Linda High School on Wednesday for refusing to take off anti-gay T-shirts that administrators said were inappropriate. The shirts, which the students wore in protest of the Day of Silence said “Sodomy is sin” and quoted a Bible passage about homosexuality.

    Phil Spears, interim principal of Rio Linda, said the shirts violated the school’s dress code. Students were asked to take them off, he said, and were suspended if they disobeyed the request. “They’re offensive to some people and disruptive to school,” he said. “Kids are going to react to these.”

    ..Some of the suspended students and their supporters staged an after-school protest outside Rio Linda High. They held signs saying, “School censors Bible,” “School bans free speech” and “Don’t silence Christians.”

    Anti-gay shirts bring suspensions, April 19, 2007
    http://www.sacbee.com/179/story/157513.html

    In Spain, today:

    MADRID — The new course introduced in Spanish schoolrooms this fall seemed innocuous enough: civic lessons on the meaning of the constitution and the rights that every citizen of Spain can expect. But the curriculum has become the latest battleground in a raging war between Spain’s leftist government and the still-powerful Roman Catholic Church.

    Church officials and conservative social activists are trying to have the mandatory courses scrapped, contending that the curriculum promotes ideas that go against church teachings. Among those is acceptance of homosexuals and, by implication, same-sex marriage, which the government legalized a couple of years ago.

    “This is a frontal assault on the Catholic religion,” said Sister Maria Rosa de la Cierva, a nun who is the church’s liaison to the Education Ministry.

    “This is an authentic scholastic war . . . and part of a clear persecution, little by little, of the Catholic faith.”

    ..At the heart of the conflict is a Vatican-backed effort by Spanish conservatives to restore traditional Catholicism to a place of importance in public life — and to recapture the power and influence that go with that.

    The Socialist government, however, sees the promotion of secular values and its socially liberal agenda as essential to the nation’s modernization, especially in today’s fast-changing, multicultural Spain.

    Spain’s church-state battle goes to class, October 28, 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-church28oct28,1,6527443.story?coll=la-headlines-world&ctrack=4&cset=true

  5. Tamara – Have you actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth”? Are you giving us your informed opinion or hearsay?

    My daughter and I watched “An Inconvenient Truth” and like the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who have reviewed it, found it to be very informative and accurate.

  6. A balanced and objective British court with guts and maturity investigated and highlighted the 9 blatant falsehoods spread by AlGore and his propaganda movie. I guess Dean S. was not bothered by the following significant problems and inaccuracies in the film:

    * (1) The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government’s expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.

    * (2) The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.

    * (3) The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.

    * (4) The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government’s expert had to accept that this was not the case.

    * (5) The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.

    * (6) The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant’s evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.

    * (7) The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.

    * (8) The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.

    * (9) The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

  7. You should have let reader see Judge Burton’s entire statement:

    Mr Justice Burton said he had no complaint about Gore’s central thesis that climate change was happening and was being driven by emissions from humans. However, the judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus.

    Gore climate film’s nine ‘errors’
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

    Actually the Judge is wrong on those 9 points and I will provide rebuttal when I get a chance

  8. Tamara, the sad fact is that every proponent of universal public education since the inception of the movement in the late 19th century has been in favor of government indoctrination–it is part and parcel to the whole public education scheme. Local control, like federalism is gone, never to return there are so many federal mandates that it is simply not possible. Private schools or home schools are the only realistic alternative.

    Right now in Kansas our dear govenor, in addition to being one of the most ferral of abortion advocates I’ve ever seen in public office, seems to think that at least 50% of the state budget ought to go into public schools without any real accountablity for how it is spent. Not to mention the federal judge who mandated that the state of Kansas find aother 2 billion dollars to fund education because he did not think we were spending enough. The greed for money leads to state lotteries and other forms of legalized gambling with the promise that the funds will go to “education” which does not mean anything that actually benefits children.

  9. Green Myths On Global Warming — Debunked
    ——————————————————————————–

    1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
    FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the ‘urban heat island effect’ i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, ‘false high’ ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.

    2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
    FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn’t reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.

    3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
    FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind’s help.

    4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
    FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

    5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
    FACT A report in the journal ‘Science’ in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What’s more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

    6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
    FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.

    7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through ‘global warming’
    FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.

    8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
    FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are ‘just another tax’ on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.

    9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say ‘global warming’ is real and that we must do something now.
    FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the ‘spin’ that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
    The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.

    10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
    FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind’s activities on climate.
    Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said “the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary” … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.

    http://www.abd.org.uk/green_myths.htm

  10. Dean,

    Focus should be on academics and this focus will only happen at the local level. The state politicians could care less how well our students read, write or think. In fact, I am beginning to believe they do not want our children to learn how to develop critical thinking skills because they are then likely to not accept the various agendas of the special interests groups in office.

    If environmentalism is to be taught as a subject in elementary and middle schools it needs to be taught as a hard science. It should not be taught from the viewpoint of a former politician who has his own agenda. As others have stated above, this movie is full of half-truths and lies.

    As for your other message about how are we to find a way to protect the rights of all, I believe my children have the right not to be forced to endure programs that extol the “virtues” of a lifestyle (whether heterosexual or homosexual) that leads to death (physically and spiritually). The middle school sex education program at my son’s school encourages the children to experiment with their sexuality to discover who they are and there is little mention of rising STD rates among our youth due to this experimentation.
    When will somebody tell these formers hippies and their followers who now are running our state education program that their grand experiment called the “sexual revolution” was complete failure?

  11. Tamara – I totally agree with your last paragraph. Beyond teaching people not to be violent or hateful towards people of different sexual orientation I think the schools should be silent on the subject and respect differing points of view. Our schools should be busy preparing students for college or a vocation, not engaging in divisive cultural indoctrination.

    I totally disagree with your second paragraph. Al Gore is not a scientist, and has never pretended to be one. He is an educator in his post-political career and recently won the Nobel Peace prize for raising global awareness of an urgent and critical environmental issue. It’s not a political issue; it’s about how hospitable our planet will continue to be for human habitation given the alarming trends we are witnessing. The movie is not full of half truths and lies.

    Scientists OK Gore’s movie for accuracy , USA Today, 6/27/2006

    The nation’s top climate scientists are giving An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore’s documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

    The former vice president’s movie — replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets — mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press

    But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

    “Excellent,” said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. “He got all the important material and got it right.”

    Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

    “I sat there and I’m amazed at how thorough and accurate,” Corell said. “After the presentation I said, ‘Al, I’m absolutely blown away. There’s a lot of details you could get wrong.’ … I could find no error.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-06-27-gore-science-truth_x.htm

  12. Dean,

    The article you have shared states only 19 scientists found this movie accurate.
    Many of the 100 contacted either were skeptical of the movies’ claims or they hadn’t even bothered to see the movie or read his book which leads me to believe they do not consider his work to be worthy of their time as scientists.

    from the article:

    “The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.”

    As for your other comment about homosexuals, why must they be singled out as the only group who deserves to be treated with respect? I remember being laughed at in class by my social studies teacher in ninth grade after he went around the room and asked each of us what we valued most in our life. I stated,”My Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.”
    He laughed…and then he encouraged the other students to laugh with him. I just sat there in shock. Ten years later I had heard he died of AIDS from sexual contact with a variety of men.

    Everyone deserves to be treated respectfully regardless of their age, gender, weight, height, hair color, religion, etc. etc. and if one does not learn that in the home it is highly unlikely a school’s anti-bullying program will have much of an effect at changing ingrained behavior. Besides that, these extra programs use up precious academic time and school funding.

  13. Tamara, You raised a great point about the “special treatment” argument used to bolsted the radical agenda of the homosexual lobby. I also recall many instances in high-school and college where my comments against communism were ridiculed and I was laughed for my stance against leftist dogma due to my Eastern European background. The reality and truth of the absolute evil and tyranny perpetrated by the commnists that I experienced and saw first hand was summarily dismissed. And it wasn’t just me. Many other students with similar backgrounds were persecuted and silenced for daring to stand up to the ideology and lies of their professors.

  14. Yes, Chris…I also remember an anthropology instructor in college stating as a part of her lecture on world faiths that all religions were myths and she couldn’t understand how any educated person today could still believe there was a God.

    My husband had to deal with this same intolerance toward faith at Stanford while he was an undergrad. One of his professors basically was repeating the same opinions that all religions were mythology and only those who were feeble-minded or ignorant believed in a god. He then asked those of his students in class who believed in God to prove He existed.

    Silencing through intimidation at the hands of those in positions of authority is quite effective.

  15. “Special treatment” is justified by the fact that the suicide rate is four times higher among gay teens than it is for teenagers in general. Among adults, homosexual men also have a significantly higher rate of suicide than the general population.

    Do Eastern Europeans or people who publically proclaim their faith in Jesus Christ, or any other group, suffer a high suicide rate as result of intolerance? I haven’t seen evidence that suggests they do.

    Much of the cause for the high suicide rate may be the result of the very aspects of homosexuality Christians condemn. Certainly telling people over and ovber again that they are worthless and that God hates them cannot be helpful however. As a Christian I don’t want to be guilty of condoning a climate of persecution that drives people to take their own lives. Do you?

  16. Dean,

    Think of all the various groups through the centuries who were persecuted then let me know if suicide rates coincided with their persecution. I think homosexual suicide rates correspond more to the fact that their sinful behavior is likely to lead to suicide.

    Homosexuals deserve respect as human beings created in the image of God but they are not entitled to special treatment above the rest of us humans.

  17. Dean S. I’m not sure where you got your “suicide rate is four times higher among gay teens than it is for teenagers in general” but here’s a more balanced and well-researched perspective:

    The Gay Youth Suicide Myth
    http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/labarbera.html

    Excerpt:

    The rate of suicide has nearly tripled among young people since 1965.[1] Efforts to discover the root causes of this epidemic of self-inflicted violence must be dispassionate and free of politics. However, homosexual activists have manipulated this national tragedy to promote their political agenda.

    Voicing concern over suicide risk for “gay youth,” homosexual activists are pushing pro-homosexual programs in the schools, which will invariably ensnare vulnerable teens who might otherwise have avoided the destructive homosexual lifestyle. Their diagnosis: gay youths need affirmation of their homosexuality in a “homophobic” world, or they may become suicidal. The proffered solution: affirmation programs that make gay youths comfortable with being homosexual and the rest of the student population comfortable with the concept of homosexuality. Once everyone accepts homosexuality as “normal” and “natural,” gay youth will achieve high self-esteem and avoid suicidal behavior.

    But this view is based on the aims and values of the gay activist movement, not on any solid scientific assessment. For starters, it ignores the possibility that homosexuality is a condition-apart from societal acceptance or nonacceptance-that often leads to unhealthy behavior, which leads to unhappiness.

    The genesis of the homosexual teen suicide myth lies in a deeply flawed and pro-homosexual report by San Francisco homosexual activist Paul Gibson.

    Dr. David Shaffer, one of the country’s leading authorities on suicide among youth, notes that Gibson’s paper “was never subjected to the rigorous peer review that is required for publication in a scientific journal and contained no new research findings.

    I recall you demanding “rigorous scientific studies” to defend one’s points. I think it’s time you start practicing what you’ve been preaching…

  18. According to the actual wording of the bill, the bill would “amend existing nondiscrimination provisions in California law to be consistent with the nondiscrimination provisions in the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Unruh Act) and Government Code Section 11135, which prohibits discrimination in state funded programs and activities. Under current law, there are fifty one provisions which prohibit discrimination against individuals who are members of specified categories known as ‘protected classes.'”

    So, if things were to continue as they are now, Mormons (for example) would continue to remain on the list of “protected classes.” Is the gripe here the fact that gays are merely being added to this list of groups they disagree with (but can’t say anything about), or is it the fact that the list exists at all?

    If we’re suggesting that the concept of “protected classes” can potentially endanger free speech, I’d agree. In the mean time, this bill doesn’t seem to change all that much in the scheme of things.

    (On a side note: does the fact that Mitt Romney mention his Mormon faith in his speeches and political debates make him an “activist” or a shill for the Mormon religion as some here suggest gay activists are by simply acknowledging their orientation in public?)

  19. #13 Tamara

    A couple of months back Dean S. posted the exact same article, and its misleading character was quickly exposed by other posters. They did it in exactly the same way you did: by reading it and pointing out the obvious.

    Some advice: he will post the same article two months from now regardless.

  20. #16

    It makes much more sense that a troubled young person is likely to be “acting out” in several ways, one of which would be the adoption of immoral sexual behavior.

  21. Chris: You were right, I should have provided better attribution for my claim regarding elevated suicide rates among gay men. Here it is:

    Suicide Attempts Among Gay and Bisexual Men: Lifetime Prevalence and Antecedents, American Journal of Public Health, August 2002

    Objectives. We examined lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts and psychosocial correlates in a large population-based sample of men who have sex with men (MSM).

    Methods. A telephone probability sample of US urban MSM (n=2881) were interviewed between November 1996 and February 1998.

    Results. Twenty-one percent had made a suicide plan; 12% had attempted suicide (almost half of those 12% were multiple attempters). Most who attempted suicide made their first attempt before age 25. Although prevalence of parasuicide (i.e., attempted suicide) has remained constant across birth cohorts, mean age at initial attempts has declined.

    Conclusions. MSM are at elevated risk for suicide attempts, with such risk clustered earlier in life. Some risk factors were specific to being gay or bisexual in a hostile environment.

    (Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1338–1345)

    http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/92/8/1338.pdf

  22. As Tom C suggested people who are already troubled could easily adopt an immoral way of living and engage in homosexual behavior. It is equally possible that simply the dislocation of their own being that results in a homosexual ideation could lead to suicide, not the rejection of others. Suicide is fundamentally a selfish and narcissistic act and bears little realtion to what others around do or don’t do. Homosexual behavior is intrinsically selfish and narcissistic as well.

Comments are closed.